Moulton v. County of Tioga, New York, 3:22-cv-00340

Background

Plaintiff Wayne T. Moulton worked for the Tioga County Sheriff’s Department (TCSD) for nearly three decades, ultimately rising to the position of Undersheriff.
Moulton expressed intentions to run for Tioga County Sheriff—a position held by Defendant Gary Howard—delivering political speeches in 2019, but accepted the Undersheriff position when Howard sought reelection.
Moulton resigned in May 2020 after being given an ultimatum by Sheriff Howard to retire or be fired over allegations of drinking on duty; he denies the allegations and asserts no disciplinary process was observed.
In May 2021, after further internal investigation, Defendants had Moulton’s law enforcement “Registry” status with the state changed from "retired" to "removal for cause," causing revocation of his certification and allegedly ending any prospects for law enforcement employment.
Moulton brought federal claims for First Amendment retaliation and Fourteenth Amendment due process violations (“stigma-plus”), as well as common law defamation, all based on the adverse employment consequences allegedly resulting from his political activity.
Defendants moved for summary judgment seeking dismissal of all claims.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff’s Argument	Defendant’s Argument	Held
Whether political speeches about running for sheriff are protected First Amendment activity	Moulton's speeches expressing interest in running for Sheriff were protected speech	Only formal campaign acts are protected; Moulton’s were informal and not protected	Court holds speeches were protected First Amendment activity
Whether alleged adverse employment action occurred	Registry status change and revocation of certification constituted adverse action	No adverse action; resignation was voluntary and Registry change was not punitive	Material fact questions remain; Registry change could deter exercise of rights; claim survives
Causation between protected activity and adverse action	Adverse action was motivated by retaliatory animus due to his protected speech	Action was based on misconduct, not speech, and too remote in time	Material factual disputes remain; reasonable juror could find retaliation causal link
Fourteenth Amendment “stigma-plus” due process deprivation	Plaintiff was deprived of liberty interest (future law enforcement jobs) without process	No deprivation of property/right; Plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies	Issues of fact remain; claim survives; exhaustion defense rejected
Common law defamation claim	Defamatory statements harmed reputation in profession	No special damages pled by Plaintiff	Dismissed; no evidence of special (economic) damages
Municipal liability under Section 1983	County’s inaction after Plaintiff’s appeal shows deliberate indifference	No official policy or deliberate indifference	Issue of fact exists; claim against County survives
Captain Nalepa’s individual liability	Nalepa directly involved in Registry status change	Nalepa not personally involved	Issue of fact; claim survives against Nalepa

Key Cases Cited

Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S. 410 (2006) (distinguishing between public employee speech as a citizen on matters of public concern from official duties)
Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138 (1983) (defining matters of public concern under First Amendment)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) (summary judgment standard; whether genuine issues of material fact exist)
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972) (liberty interest in government employment relevant for due process claims)
Donato v. Plainview-Old Bethpage Cent. Sch. Dist., 96 F.3d 623 (2d Cir. 1996) (damage to professional reputation and loss of future employment as liberty interest in stigma-plus claim)
Morris v. Lindau, 196 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 1999) (standard for adverse employment action and retaliation in public employment)
Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability requires action pursuant to official policy or custom)